So-net無料ブログ作成
検索選択

雇用形態多様化に伴う社会扶助の性格変化 [Social Policy]

OECD諸国(日本を含む)の最低所得保障施策,日本の場合の生活保護制度,が20世紀末から21世紀初頭にかけて,世界的な雇用形態の多様化を受けて,失業保険給付を受けられない被用者の増大から,アメリカでは従来のAFDC-UP=Aid to dependent children with unemployed manが →Temporary Assisitance for Needy Families=TANF へとその性格を変貌させて来ており,Means testを経て給付する単純形態から.いかに雇用市場に戻していくかという雇用促進策の推進を迫られている事態があることをを踏まえて,Income Support Measures がどのように性格を変えていくべきかを論じた調査報告が発表されていましたので,ご紹介します.

本文には多くの統計分析が含まれていますが,図表が大きすぎて,Blog に転載不能ですから,ここでは,最初のNON-TECHNICAL SUMMARYと最後のConcluding comments: current and future challenges だけを下記に掲載しますが,その内容は重複しますので,その要点を原文のままご紹介します.

1.the current rapid decline in economic activity can be expected to be a powerful driver of the demand for minimum safety-nets.
2.
In addition to the expected lengthening of average unemployment spells, and the resulting rising number of people running out of unemployment benefit entitlements, those with temporary jobs or other forms of non-standard employment are often not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place.

3.For these individuals, employment durations are shorter, transitions into and out of work more frequent and coverage by social insurance benefits can be less universal as a result.
4.They are also typically more easily shed from the workforce. With increasing shares of non-standard workers in a number of OECD countries, this may cause social assistance benefit rolls to react more strongly to labour-market conditions (i.e., become more counter-cyclical) than was the case in the past.

5.some of these challenges point to the need for a debate on the relative roles of insurance and assistance benefits. For instance, should coverage of insurance benefits be extended to non-standard workers or should lower-tier assistance benefits be strengthened?

6.More urgently, there is a need to consider how an activation and reintegration focus can bemaintained when labour demand is weak and competition for existing job vacancies intense(OECD, 2009b, c). Where minimum-income programmes are lower-tier benefits, recipients tend to face significantly less promising employment prospects in a slack labour market than recipients of unemployment benefits with more recent work experience.

7.Increasing numbers of benefit recipients are likely to test the capacity of welfare agencies and public employment services to administer highquality activation programmes and job-search assistance to everybody. This will further add to the challenge of targeting activation and support measures in a way that minimises benefit spells for the most employable, while preventing less employable clients from becoming permanently benefit-dependent.

8.The most immediate priority, however, is to prevent support seekers from going without effective minimum safety-nets at a time when they are most needed. Preventing steep increases in the extent and severity of poverty is likely to present a particularly difficult shortterm challenge for those countries that are not currently operating broad minimum-income programmes. 

以上ですが,私の生活保護制度改革論は,これまでこのブログで一貫して主張して来たように,勤労世代に対する生活保護は,区市単位の福祉事務所ではなく,国のハローワークに移管すべきだということにあります.

この論文は,その主張の正当性を裏付けて余り有るモノと考えます. 

 

 

Minimum-Income Benefits in OECD Countries: Policy Design, Effectiveness and Challenges


IZA Discussion Paper No. 4627

December 2009

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

The current economic downturn is putting pressures on governments to strengthen income

support measures. While buoyant labour markets in many OECD countries have helped to

restrain recipiency numbers since the mid-late nineties, the current rapid decline in economic

activity can be expected to be a powerful driver of the demand for minimum safety-nets.

In addition to the expected lengthening of average unemployment spells, and the resulting

rising number of people running out of unemployment benefit entitlements, those with

temporary jobs or other forms of non-standard employment are often not entitled to

unemployment benefits in the first place. For these individuals, employment durations are

shorter, transitions into and out of work more frequent and coverage by social insurance

benefits can be less universal as a result. They are also typically more easily shed from the

workforce. With increasing shares of non-standard workers in a number of OECD countries,

this may cause social assistance benefit rolls to react more strongly to labour-market

conditions (i.e., become more counter-cyclical) than was the case in the past.

In the medium
term, some of these challenges point to the need for a debate on the relative roles of insurance and assistance benefits. For instance, should coverage of insurance benefits be extended to non-standard workers or should lower-tier assistance benefits be strengthened?

More urgently, there is a need to consider how an activation and reintegration focus can be

maintained when labour demand is weak and competition for existing job vacancies intense

(OECD, 2009b, c). Where minimum-income programmes are lower-tier benefits, recipients

tend to face significantly less promising employment prospects in a slack labour market than

recipients of unemployment benefits with more recent work experience. Yet, the group of

minimum-income beneficiaries is very heterogeneous in most countries including, for

instance, those with recent but intermittent employment records and other recent job losers

who do not qualify for insurance benefits. Increasing numbers of benefit recipients are likely

to test the capacity of welfare agencies and public employment services to administer highquality activation programmes and job-search assistance to everybody. This will further add to the challenge of targeting activation and support measures in a way that minimises benefit spells for the most employable, while preventing less employable clients from becoming permanently benefit-dependent.

The most immediate priority, however, is to prevent support seekers from going without

effective minimum safety-nets at a time when they are most needed. Preventing steep

increases in the extent and severity of poverty is likely to present a particularly difficult shortterm challenge for those countries that are not currently operating broad minimum-income programmes. In addition, existing social assistance programmes are likely to see new clients added at much faster rates as unemployment durations lengthen. They will only be able to continue meeting their objectives of poverty alleviation and activation if they are equipped with the financial and operational capacity to deal with the inflow of new claimants and an increasing stock of recipients.

Concluding comments: current and future challenges

The current economic downturn is putting pressures on governments to strengthen income support measures (OECD, 2009b). While buoyant labour markets in many OECD countries have helped to restrain recipiency numbers since the mid-late nineties, the current rapid decline in economic activity can be expected to be a powerful driver of the demand for minimum safety-nets.


In addition to the expected lengthening of average unemployment spells, and the resulting rising
number of people running out of unemployment benefit entitlements, those with temporary jobs or other forms of non-standard employment are often not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. For these individuals, employment durations are shorter, transitions into and out of work more frequent and coverage by social insurance benefits can be less universal as a result. They are also typically more easily shed from the workforce. With increasing shares of non-standard workers in a number of OECD

countries28, this may cause social assistance benefit rolls to react more strongly to labour-market conditions (i.e., become more counter-cyclical) than was the case in the past.

In the medium term, some of these
challenges point to the need for a debate on the relative roles of insurance and assistance benefits. For instance, should coverage of insurance benefits be extended to non-standard workers or should lower-tier assistance benefits be strengthened?


More urgently, there is a need to consider how an activation and reintegration focus can be maintained
when labour demand is weak and competition for existing job vacancies intense (OECD, 2009b, c). Where minimum-income programmes are lower-tier benefits, recipients tend to face significantly less promising employment prospects in a slack labour market than recipients of unemployment benefits with more recent work experience. Yet, the group of minimum-income beneficiaries is very heterogeneous in most countries including, for instance, those with recent but intermittent employment records and other recent job losers who do not qualify for insurance benefits. Increasing numbers of benefit recipients are likely to test the capacity of welfare agencies and public employment services to administer high-quality activation programmes and job-search assistance to everybody. This will further add to the challenge of targeting activation and support measures in a way that minimises benefit spells for the most employable, while preventing less employable clients from becoming permanently benefit-dependent.


The most immediate priority, however, is to prevent support seekers from going without effective
minimum safety-nets at a time when they are most needed. Preventing steep increases in the extent and severity of poverty is likely to present a particularly difficult short-term challenge for those countries that are not currently operating broad minimum-income programmes. In addition, existing social assistance programmes are likely to see new clients added at much faster rates as unemployment durations lengthen.


They will only be able to continue meeting their objectives of poverty alleviation and activation if they are
equipped with the financial and operational capacity to deal with the inflow of new claimants and an increasing stock of recipients.


Although trends are far from uniform across OECD countries, the share of temporary employment in
EU-15 countries has increased by about 20% during the past decade (to 14.8% in 2007). Temporary work accounts for more than 20% of total employment in Poland and Portugal, while almost every third employment contract in Spain is non-permanent. Outside of Europe, Japan has seen a particularly strong expansion of non-standard forms of employment.

 


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問

nice! 0

コメント 0

コメントを書く

お名前:
URL:
コメント:
画像認証:
下の画像に表示されている文字を入力してください。

※ブログオーナーが承認したコメントのみ表示されます。

トラックバック 0